What can we help you find? Enter your search above.
What can we help you find? Enter your search above.
Communicating with Sugarman Rogers through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship with the firm or any of our attorneys. Our decision as to whether and on what terms we may agree to represent a client involves consideration of a variety of factors, discussion with the prospective client, and, where appropriate, a written engagement agreement.
Please do not use this form of communication to transmit any private, personally identifying, or other confidential information. We cannot guarantee the confidentiality or security of this means of communication.
December 20, 2016
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly recently spoke with Sugarman Rogers partner John O’Neill in preparing an article on a December 2016 decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit charging that a liability-insurance company breached its duty defend. The court held that under the applicable policy terms the duty did not arise because no lawsuit had been filed against the insured.
John, a member of Sugarman Rogers’s Insurance & Reinsurance practice group, was cited by Lawyers Weekly as suggesting that the court had “adopted a typical interpretation of the duty to defend,” notwithstanding “some non-standard policy language that was ‘not nearly as clear’ as more standard policies.” “If every [chapter] 93A demand letter triggered a duty to defend,” John told Lawyers Weekly, “it would broaden the scope of the policy’s coverage pretty dramatically.”the policy’s coverage pretty dramatically,” he said.
Click here to read the full article.
|
|
John O’Neill talks to Lawyers Weekly about recent decision on insurer’s duty to defend |
Date: December 20, 2016 |
News |
John G. O'Neill |
Related Services: Insurance & Reinsurance |
||
|
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly recently spoke with Sugarman Rogers partner John O’Neill in preparing an article on a December 2016 decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit charging that a liability-insurance company breached its duty defend. The court held that under the applicable policy terms the duty did not arise because no lawsuit had been filed against the insured. John, a member of Sugarman Rogers’s Insurance & Reinsurance practice group, was cited by Lawyers Weekly as suggesting that the court had “adopted a typical interpretation of the duty to defend,” notwithstanding “some non-standard policy language that was ‘not nearly as clear’ as more standard policies.” “If every [chapter] 93A demand letter triggered a duty to defend,” John told Lawyers Weekly, “it would broaden the scope of the policy’s coverage pretty dramatically.”the policy’s coverage pretty dramatically,” he said. |
Related People |
|||
John G. O'NeillPartner617.227.3030oneill@sugarmanrogers.com |
|||